When the evidence that links a defendant to a charged drug conspiracy is based on his participation in an isolated series of alleged transactions with the central conspirators, but where there is an absence of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that those particular transactions involved the controlled substance that is the object of the conspiracy, can the government rely on evidence that the broader conspiracy involved the distribution of the controlled substance to overcome a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, or does such reliance violate the defendant's due process rights and this Court's holding in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979)?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. When the evidence that links a defendant to a charged drug conspiracy is based on his participation in an isolated series of alleged transactions with the central conspirators, but where there is an absence of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that those particular transactions involved the controlled substance that is the object of the conspiracy, can the government rely on evidence that the broader conspiracy involved the distribution of the controlled substance to overcome a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, or does such reliance violate the defendant’s due process rights and this Court’s holding in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979)? 2. Did the trial judge commit plain error when, after the verdict, he conducted an off record and ex parte poll of the jury for each juror’s recommended sentence, and then considered the median sentence recommended by the jurors in fashioning the ultimate sentence imposed upon the defendant? i